H.A. StepplerInternational Council for Research in Agro-forestry,
Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract

The fact that agro-forestry land-use systems are
locationspecific makes it difficult to design models adapted to
all circumstances. It is therefore proposed to pursue the
development of new methods applicable to the description of both
existing and conceptual land-use systems. The aim is to identify
constraints that can potentially be overcome by the application
of an agro-forestry approach.

It is also argued that the development and implementation
of agro-forestry systems may benefit from the
institutionalization of such an approach to land use.

Introduction

Agro-forestry is the new word for an age-old practice-that of
having trees in the agricultural landscape. It has become more
refined in meaning and now connotes trees with a purpose such
that the land-use system yields both a food product and a tree
product, each meeting the needs of the user of the system. At the
same time, the agro-forestry system should be stabilizing in its
impact on the environment and stable in its output of products.

The modern concern for agro-forestry arose among the
foresters. They saw the forested lands being threatened by a
growing population demanding more food and hence by farmers
seeking more land upon which to grow that food. Their reaction
was rational-find a way to accommodate some aspects of
agriculture within forestry. In contrast, conventional
agriculture, and here I include both crop and animal agriculture,
has made virtually no contribution to alleviating the concern for
the pressure that its activities are placing on the
non-agricultural tree-covered areas.

To leave the concern and the development of agro-forestry with
the foresters would deny to it the body of knowledge that exists
outside forestry, while to delegate to agriculture the
responsibility for agro-forestry would not correct the situation
but merely reverse the wrongs and accomplish nothing. The need is
to institutionalize agro-forestry; to establish it independently
of both agriculture and forestry so that it can develop its own
concepts, body of knowledge, and principles, not engulfed by
either of its antecedents but able to draw upon their resources
as is deemed necessary. The International Council for Research in
Agro-forestry (ICRAF) is such an institution.

There is ample precedence for the efficacy of
institutionalization. Statistics, for instance, with its approach
to design and analysis of experiments, began to emerge from
mathematics when R.A. Fisher started his classic work at
Rothamsted: he was, literally, the institution. Genetics,
likewise, did not establish a clear identity until it separated
from biology, be it botany or zoology. In many universities today
that separation has not been effectively concluded. Agro-forestry
is much less clearly defined than either statistics or genetics
and is thus even more in need of its own institution. I hasten to
add, however, that if in establishing the institution-whether
agro-forestry or genetics -one divorced it from all those areas
that have relevance to it, then that would be a retrograde step.

The Systems Approach

The establishment of the institution is merely the first step
in establishing an identity; the next critical move is to develop
the focus, the raison d'Ítre, the strategy. With this, one would
then develop the approach to the problems and the activities
deemed most appropriate to provide answers. Further, the kind of
staff would be identified and the targets for the activity would
become clearer.

The key word is systems. Agro-forestry is a system of land
use. It is, at the same time, a food and tree-product production
system. It is not a single commodity nor a single management
practice but rather a complex interacting set of subsystems,
components, and practices suited to a particular environment and
needs.

The systems approach implies, first, that one does not engage
in piecemeal consideration of problems, and, second, that there
is an analytic rather than merely intuitive approach to land-use
systems. The analytic approach is the diagnostic method that
enables one to analyse the state of the system, to identify the
critical subsystems, and to determine the problems or operative
constraints as well as the potentials for improvements of system
performance. From the diagnosis will then flow the capability to
identify existing agro-forestry technologies that are appropriate
to system needs. From it will flow the definition of the research
and development problems that must be solved if one is to
generate new agro-forestry technologies that possess the specific
capacities needed to improve system performance. The
International Council for Research in Agro-forestry (ICRAF) has
adopted this approach and aims to focus agro-forestry research
and development on real world problems and conditions.

The Cycle of Development

The basic logic of ICRAF's research programme is dictated by
the cycle of development (fig. 1). Each phase in the cycle
embraces a series of research activities. Each situation to which
the cycle is applied will require a different mix of the
particular activities in order to complete the cycle. The cycle
takes its starting point from the inescapable conclusion that the
process of developing a solution to a problem begins with the
capacity to analyse the problem, in this case the land-use system
in which agro-forestry technology is deemed to have a role. The
diagnosis of existing land-use systems is aimed at discovering
the agro-forestry-related constraints and potentials. This is the
deductive, analytic, or diagnostic part of the technology
development cycle.

One of the main conclusions to come from the agricultural
development research of the past decade is that the conditions
under which the majority of farmers operate often bear little
resemblance to those on agricultural research stations, with the
consequence that, unless a special effort is made to take account
of these conditions, the resulting technology is often
inappropriate for the majority of farmers. To identify the full
set of operant constraints and potentials that govern
decision-making with regard to land-use practices in a given
area, it is essential that the multidisciplinary expertise of a
team of biological and social scientists be assembled to diagnose
factors ranging from climatic constraints to cultural values.

One important outcome of the first phase of the land-use
system diagnosis will be the identification of land-use
subsystems. In this effort, ICRAF is developing a "basic
needs" approach to the identification of production
subsystems in terms of output categories that answer the
universal human need for food, energy, shelter, cash, and
community integration. In this way it is ensured that what is
analysed is highly relevant to people's needs.

How it is analysed, in the second phase of the diagnostic
research, is also a subject of intense methodological interest.
Agro-forestry, by definition, is equally concerned with
production and conservation. In this respect it differs from most
other branches of plant science, in which conservation aspects of
production systems are frequently of secondary, if any, concern.
This difference in purpose requires a difference in methods.
ICRAF is now exploring analytic techniques to diagnose the
performance of basic output subsystems in terms of both their
productivity and their sustainability, thus encompassing both
aspects of its diagnostic objective.

The final output of the diagnostic part of the cycle will be a
set of general design specifications for agro-forestry
technologies in terms of functional or end-use requirements.
These then become the primary input for the inductive, synthetic,
or R&D part of the cycle of agro-forestry development.

Two courses of action are possible in the first part of phase
three. One is to identify existing agro-forestry technologies
that are generally appropriate to local needs and that can be
used directly to bring about an improvement in the immediate
situation. The other is to generate, through research, new
technology that is specially designed to meet the diagnostic
specifications. These two courses of action are not mutually
exclusive; in fact, the most likely situation will be that in
which a temporary improvement is gained by the use of existing
technology while new technology is being developed. The cycle of
development is a continuous iterative process. One seeks the best
technology but settles for one that is merely better, hoping to
continuously improve it.

Phase four in the cycle of development encompasses the
research necessary to synthesize a new land-use system that
incorporates the new agro-forestry technology into the existing
pattern of land use in a manner consistent with local and
regional production purposes and constraints. Finally, the cycle
is completed by a new round of diagnostic research to identify
the set of constraints and potentials now operating. These must
be addressed by a new round of technology generation if the
system is to be further optimized. The four phases of the cycle
of technology development define the scope of ICRAF's research
activities. Each situation in which the cycle is applied will
require a different mix of the particular activities to complete
the cycle. An interdisciplinary approach will be pursued
throughout (fig. 2).

Research Activities

The implication of the adoption of the strategy is that there
will be two distinct but complementary research activities. These
are:

The development of the diagnostic capability for the
identification of agro-forestry needs and potentials.
This will be done through on-farm studies of the system
used by the smallholder. This will also treat
"communities," particularly when land use and
environmental impact is of major concern. This research
will initially be carried out in Kenya but later extended
to other countries.

The identification of methods to develop new
agro-forestry technology. These may range from methods of
evaluating multi-purpose trees to design of experiments
to test new systems. This research will be carried out at
the Machakos field station in Kenya.

The appropriate relationship between these two activities is
for the diagnostic research to identify the problems of highest
priority for the development of the methodology. There will
undoubtedly be some technology generated as a consequence of this
research activity but that is not the objective per se; rather it
is a spin-off from the development of the methodology.

Agro-forestry, as implied, is both a system of
land-usecumresource-management and a production system with
multiple outputs of food products-plant and animal-and tree
products that may range from food to fuel. When fuel is the aim,
the target will almost invariably be the farmer: generally, the
small farmer.

The technology will most likely be relatively
labour-intensive. The objective, however, is not to develop a
low-input system but rather one that uses inputs efficiently and
achieves a stable and sustainable output.

Where one is dealing with an agro-forestry solution as a
resource management/land-use system, the target goes beyond the
individual user. Thus, where an agro-forestry system is deemed to
be the solution for water/erosion control on sloping land, then
the catchment area becomes the target. The individual farmers
will use the technology, but the complete area must adopt it if
they are to benefit. Inherent in such a situation will be the
individual farmer's food/tree-product production but all
predicated on the primary objective of resource management.

Mention has been made of trees in the landscape. This is
probably a more rational approach than to consider "trees in
crops." The latter will tend to force one to think in terms
of tree crop mixtures that, in the majority of cases, will result
in lowered productivity of the crops. In contrast, to consider
trees in the landscape will tend to accord to trees the dominant
role where that is necessary and to crops the dominant role where
that is appropriate. One would then seek to find the relationship
that defines the role for each, yet achieves the stability that
is sought and the productivity that is needed.

Institutionalization

Finally, I return to the question of institutionalizing
agro-forestry. I believe it is important to seek
institutionalization at both international and national levels.
At the international level is ICRAF. At the national level, one
is concerned not only with the generation of appropriate
agro-forestry technology but also with the testing and transfer
of that technology to the user. In this task, agro-forestry will
draw on many areas of knowledge in forestry and agriculture as
well as many disciplines basic to them. In addition, it must draw
on the social sciences if it is to become relevant to the needs
of its users. There are many examples of recent
institutionalization, most prominent being the creation of
ministries of energy. Why not of agro-forestry? Surely the
urgency of the problems that face us demands effective action.
ICRAF will seek national institutions with which to co-operate.
Which shall they be? I am not seeking a means to proliferate
institutions but, rather, a way to place agro-forestry as a major
actor in the struggle to meet the increasing food and fuel
demands for human beings while minimizing the impact on the
environment.